western news

Editorial
Las Vegas Sun
Monday, May 07, 2007

The R.J. Reynolds marketing campaign for Camel No. 9, the company's new cigarette for women, is hardly love potion material.

In fact, it's hard to find anything decent about a scheme that involves luring young women to parties where they are pampered with free massages, free hairstyling, goody bags with makeup and jewelry and, of course, free samples of Camel No. 9 cigarettes. Make no mistake: These are not Joe Camel's smokes. Ads describe them as "light and luscious." They reportedly smell better than the traditional Camel cigarette, and they come in a sleek, chic black-and-pink pack. A 26-year-old woman who attended a recent Camel No. 9 launch party in Florida told National Public Radio that she likes the pack because "it's more for females, instead of carrying around a nasty, ugly pack."

Still, the contents of that pack remain nasty and ugly. Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. And, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, lung cancer death rates for U.S. women are among the world's highest. It is the No. 1 cancer killer among women, eclipsing even breast and cervical cancers.

R.J. Reynolds officials say that only about 30 percent of current Camel smokers are women, and that the ads are intended to attract women who already are smokers. The company disputes that Camel No. 9 advertising and packaging target teenage girls or young women who don't smoke.

But during a Senate hearing in February, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, held one of the ads aloft and said it "strains the imagination to think this campaign is aimed at anybody other than 15-, 16-, 17-year-old girls _ something that's pretty morally repugnant."

Actually, seeking to pass off cigarettes as something luxurious to do for oneself _ such as getting a new hairstyle or makeup _ is morally repugnant for women of any age.

There is nothing pretty about smoking and the illnesses and deaths it causes.

Editorial
Sacramento Bee
Monday, May 07, 2007

President Bush has yet to make a convincing argument for his 2002 decision to monitor international telephone calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States without warrants.

Now, five years later, Bush administration officials are asking Congress to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to give the president even greater surveillance powers. In essence, as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., put it at last week's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, they are asking the American people simply to "trust us, we need this authority and we'll use it well."

Such trust isn't warranted.

Under questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell said that in 2002 there was an "operational necessity" for the president to go around the 1978 FISA law because the law didn't address today's global technological systems. If that's true, the president could have _ and should have _ asked Congress to change the law. But he didn't.

Now, belatedly, the president is asking for changes, but he's still reserving the right to skirt the law. As Feinstein noted, "There is nothing in this bill that confines the president to work within FISA," even if Congress amends it exactly as Bush desires.

All of this is part of a familiar theme from the administration. After Bush's warrantless surveillance was revealed by the New York Times in January, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales assured Congress that the federal government would seek warrants from the FISA court for international calls and e-mails that involved Americans. But administration officials continue to assert that the president has "inherent power" to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without court-approved warrants.

Congress hasn't verified that warrantless surveillance of people in the United States has ended, as the attorney general promised in January. And the proposed bill asks Congress and the American people to allow warrantless surveillance of international communications, while simply trusting that "minimization procedures" would be followed if the communication of Americans was involved.

That's not good enough. While Congress should look to update the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act to reflect the evolution of communications technology, the Bush administration bill is too sweeping and does little to check potential abuses.

By TONY DAVIS and DANIELLE SOTTOSANTI
Arizona Daily Star
Friday, May 04, 2007

Oro Valley became the first Tucson-area government to impose mandatory water conservation during the current drought, announcing it will ban daytime outdoor watering.

Effective immediately, residents and businesses there are forbidden from watering their plants outdoors from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. That's when authorities say water losses to evaporation are at a peak.

Violators will not be fined. Officials say they believe that most people will voluntarily turn off their sprinklers and drip systems during those hours because of the widespread knowledge of the current drought's severity.

If city officials get a call complaining about violations, they will try to contact that person to check out the complaint but can't guarantee they'll be able to visit the home or business because of a lack of staff members, said Philip Saletta, the town's water utility director.

"By working with our customers, and getting the word out through the media, I think our customers will respond," said Saletta in explaining why he thinks the ban can succeed without fines.

It's the first time in at least the last few decades that any local government has restricted household water use, said Val Little, director of the Water Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona.

The outdoor ban is part of a package of otherwise voluntary conservation measures that the Oro Valley Town Council adopted last November as part of a drought response plan. All local governments in the state were required to submit such plans, whose conservation measures typically would grow more severe if the drought intensifies.

Most such plans require mandatory conservation at some point. But Oro Valley's plan is one of the few if not the only one in the Tucson area that calls for mandatory water-saving at this stage of the drought, which the plan calls Stage 2.

The plan also asks homeowners and business owners to cut their water use by 10 percent except for homes using less than 4,000 gallons per month. The typical Oro Valley homeowner uses about 10,000 gallons a month.

"Watering during nighttime hours is very effective for conserving water," saving 5 percent to 7 percent and perhaps as much as 10 percent compared with daytime watering, Saletta said.

By contrast, Tucson Water _ which serves much of the metro area but not Oro Valley, which has its own water system _ is currently at a Stage 1 drought planning level. No conservation requirements are imposed on homeowners or businesses. Tucson Water's only current requirement is for water audits on city government facilities.

Restrictions on outdoor watering for Tucson Water customers could come either at a Stage 3 or Stage 4 drought level, said Mitch Basefsky, a Tucson Water spokesman.

Well levels in Oro Valley are dropping faster than in most parts of the Tucson area _ at an average of 5.6 feet a year in the past two years.

But the main factors that drove the town into a Stage 2 declaration this week were the dry weather _ rainfall there since Oct. 1 is 66 percent of normal _and the fact that the federal government has classified this as a severe drought.

Fines for violators won't be put into effect unless the drought reaches a more serious Stage 3 drought level, said Shirley Seng, the town's water utility administrator.

(Contact Tony Davis at tdavis(at)azstarnet.com and Danielle Sottosanti at dsottosanti(at)azstarnet.com.)

By JIM BOREN
Fresno Bee
Friday, May 04, 2007

The footpaths across our southern border go in both directions. We encourage Mexican workers to sneak into this country to work in jobs we don't want, and we send jobs to Mexico that we do want. While our political leaders say these seemingly conflicting policies should be fixed, there are too many people benefiting from this system for any real changes to be made.

It's the equivalent of a 21st century economic miracle. Employers can get cheap labor on both sides of the border.

All this came together last week as the San Joaquin Valley debated two nagging issues: immigration reform and the need for good-paying jobs.

On the day that illegal immigrants were rallying for legal status, the venerable Hershey Co. announced it was closing its Valley chocolate factory and moving those jobs to a plant it will build in Monterrey, Mexico.

These two events framed up our schizophrenia on the issues very nicely. As a society, we say we want to stop illegal immigration, but for economic reasons we don't. We also say we want to keep jobs from leaving this country, yet corporations that ship them abroad get rewarded by Wall Street.

These issues are contentious, but this much we can agree on: If Mexico had a stronger economy, fewer of its citizens would travel to the U.S. for jobs and fewer American companies would find it cheaper to build entire factories in Mexico.

But there's no sign of Mexico improving its economic plight, despite the argument by free-traders that all this would change if markets were opened on both sides of the border. A dozen years after the North America Free Trade Agreement took effect, not much has changed.

While Mexico ignores the needs of its people, much of corporate America is more than willing to take advantage of that neglect. Unfortunately, most in this country interpret free trade as cheap trade _ financed by the poor wages paid in trading partners like Mexico.

We see that in agriculture, the hotel industry and construction. Those industries are subsidized by illegal immigrants working for cheap wages.

At the same time, Hershey can close its chocolate factory in Oakdale in Stanislaus County and put 575 people out of work because they make a good wage. Ship those jobs to Mexico and Hershey, a publicly traded company, can tell shareholders costs are down and profits will be up.

But that's short-term thinking and there's a huge price to pay for the way we do business.

Agriculture and the others may benefit from cheap labor, but those illegal immigrants they encourage to come here are showing up in our hospital emergency rooms, schools and social service agencies. We all pay for it through increased insurance premiums and public resources stretched by a population we don't formally recognize.

And what will be the impact of Hershey closing its Oakdale plant? It's the largest employer in that community, and the ripple will be felt across the region. It's the "multiplier effect" that the economic development gurus trumpet when they bring a company to town. Of course, the multiplier works in the other direction when businesses are lost to Mexico.

When I first read the news of the Hershey plant closing in Oakdale, I wondered what local and state officials were doing to save the plant. Where was Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's highly touted Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley? But you can put together all the public-private partnerships you want, and they can't trump what Mexico offers: cheap, cheap, cheap labor.

Ashley Swearengin, chief operating officer for the Regional Jobs Initiative, said the closing of the Hershey plant will impact the entire Valley. "It is a productive facility that was gaining in its capacity," she said. "However, it is still cheaper for them to produce in Mexico. According to the Hershey execs, they can get the same exact product out of Mexico for less money."

She said similar kinds of decisions may be made by other companies because of the world's economy. "Knowing that the 'World is Flat' and that things like this are going to happen more and more, what should our response be? Work like crazy to get those 575 people moved into other jobs and find someone to fill that plant."

She also said the region must grow its own businesses _ and help them expand _ and train the Valley's work force. " If we did nothing else but educate and train people, we would safeguard our economy from the impacts of inevitable plant closures."

But as long as employers can get cheap labor on both sides of the border, we're going to have workers illegally coming to this country and American companies shipping jobs to Mexico. There's no incentive to change.

(Contact Jim Boren at jboren(at)fresnobee.com.)

By BERNADETTE TANSEY
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, May 04, 2007

A California biotechnology company is collaborating with China's top rice-growing region on a project designed to reduce the huge contribution of agriculture to global warming.

Arcadia Biosciences of Davis has agreed to adapt its genetically engineered strain of rice to grow in China, where it may lower the need for nitrogen fertilizer because it absorbs the element nitrogen more efficiently than naturally occurring varieties.

Nitrogen-based fertilizer contributes to climate change because soil bacteria convert it into nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has almost 300 times the power to induce global warming as carbon dioxide, Arcadia chief executive Eric Rey said.

The company's collaboration with the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of China may also help establish a new source of revenue for farmers if the partners can demonstrate that the rice strain reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

If the benefit is recognized by governments that are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol _ an international agreement among industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions _ growers who use less fertilizer would be able to sell "carbon credits" on world trading markets.

Buyers of the credits are companies that need to offset their own excess gas emissions to avoid government penalties. A coal-fired power plant in England, for example, could someday buy credits from Chinese rice farmers, Rey said.

Emissions from agriculture contribute about 15 percent of the world's greenhouse gases, according to a report published by the World Resources Institute.

Nitrous oxide represents about half of those agricultural releases. The other half are carbon-based gases including methane and carbon dioxide.

Rice production consumes about 20 percent of global nitrogen fertilizer use and China is the world's largest user of these fertilizers, Arcadia said.

Rey estimated that China could generate $330 million of carbon credits per year if it converted to rice crops requiring less fertilizer.

The company declined to disclose revenue estimates for the use in China of its Nitrogen Use Efficiency rice, which has not been commercialized in any country. Rey said it could take six years or more to reach the marketing stage, pending regulatory approvals.

Such projects often face scientific and financial hurdles, said Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety, a watchdog group that opposes the rapid adoption of genetically modified crops.

No company has widely commercialized a genetically engineered crop variety that increases nitrogen efficiency, Freese said. About 81 percent of agricultural varieties produced through gene splicing are sold based on their ability to tolerate herbicides, he said. Freese also expressed fears such engineered traits could produce unintended health risks or environmental consequences.

(Contact Bernadette Tansey at btansey(at)sfchronicle.com.)

By ZEKE BARLOW
Scripps-McClatchy Western Service
Friday, May 04, 2007

See General Lee run. See General Lee jump. See General Lee slide.

Somewhere out there, a serious "Dukes of Hazzard" fan is yelling, "Yeee-Haaa." And writing a very fat check.

The famed General Lee owned by none other than Bo Duke (played by the Agoura Hills actor John Schneider, for you city slickers) sold on eBay Friday morning for $9,900,500, becoming one of the most expensive cars ever sold.

Schneider is selling the 1969 Dodge Charger so he can raise money to produce a next installment of his family-friendly movie "Collier & Co."

For that amount of money, the buyer, whose identity was not immediately revealed, could have bought every one of the top-10 most expensive cars on the Forbes list last year.

But how many cases of moonshine can you fit into the trunk of a Bugatti Veyron?

By DAVID WHITNEY
McClatchy Newspapers
Friday, May 04, 2007

Rep. John Doolittle, insisting that his political career is far from over, said he and his wife will form separate legal defense funds to fight the ramped-up federal corruption investigation arising out of the Jack Abramoff scandal.The separate funds, Doolittle said, will allow the congressman and his wife, Julie, whose consulting business has ensnared them in the investigation, to solicit contributions from people and businesses to pick up their escalating legal costs.

Doolittle, in his weekly press conference Thursday, said the Justice Department urged them to hire separate lawyers because it believes "there is a potential conflict of interest between my wife and me."

The funds, which have to be approved by the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee, allow corporate contributions, but require all money be spent on legal matters.

The Roseville Republican said prosecutors believe Julie Doolittle's business, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, was used by Abramoff to funnel money to him in exchange for the congressman helping the convicted lobbyist's clients.

"Their theory seems to be that she is a conduit," he said, adding that he and his wife have clear consciences.

"We've certainly made every effort to be ethical and lawful in complying with the laws relative to Julie's work," he said. "We are utterly shocked that our government is suspecting us of committing a crime. ... I cannot believe that this is how our system of justice can work in this country."

But Doolittle suggested that the Abramoff investigation soon could spread even wider.

He said he has information from sources he would not name that federal agents have executed search warrants recently against two other congressional members _ a Republican and a Democrat _ in raids that have not become public yet. He said he thinks those raids also are related to the Abramoff probe.

The Justice Department refuses to comment on the investigation, not even acknowledging that the FBI raided the Doolittles' house last month.

House rules require members to immediately notify leaders when they have been served with a subpoena. But there are no such rules applying to search warrants, which are issued by a judge only after prosecutors affirm that they believe there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

The Doolittles' house in Oakton, Va., was searched under such an assertion April 13. Three computers belonging to Julie Doolittle's business were seized, along with files.

Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions was employed by an Abramoff charity, the Capital Athletic Fund, to do fundraising. It also has been paid a 15 percent commission for raising money for Doolittle's election committee and his political action committee. Critics have charged that arrangement is a backdoor way of delivering money to Doolittle.

Some political commentators have concluded that the imbroglio has undermined Doolittle's chances of being re-elected in 2008.

In November, when the Doolittle campaign was insisting there was doubt about whether the congressman was even under investigation, Doolittle came within 3 percentage points of losing to Democratic challenger Charlie Brown in a district with heavy Republican registration.

Brown is gearing up for a campaign against Doolittle again next year, and some have speculated that the only way the seat can be kept in Republican hands is if Doolittle steps down soon and the vacancy is filled by special election.

But Doolittle said he has no such plans, saying that "they would have to drag me out of here. There is no way I am stepping down."

According to the National Taxpayers Union, which monitors congressional retirement policy, Doolittle would qualify for an immediate annual retirement of about $30,000 a year if he stepped down now. House members now earn $165,200 a year.

(Contact David Whitney at dwhitney(at)mcclatchydc.com.)

Editorial
San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, May 04, 2007

Some violent crimes are more than that. A beating, an arson attack or a killing can be fueled by hateful bias, making the harm doubly hurtful.

That's why hate crimes should go on the federal books, as Congress intends. But the White House is threatening a veto, saying the measure isn't needed and threatens free speech.

It's a weak argument that buries a major underlying issue: opposition to gay rights. Religious conservatives say hate crime statues could silence spoken criticism of gay civil rights, and an obedient White House is falling in line with its veto threat.

The House was right to ignore the threat, voting to add gender and sexual orientation to hate crimes laws. The Senate is moving in the same direction in a tandem action that could force President Bush to make a choice.

Does he truly think that hate crime laws silence free speech? Or does he side with marginalized groups that can be doubly victimized by a violent attack and the hateful prejudice behind it?

Many cities and states already enforce hate crime laws. Others don't. But there shouldn't be any gaps in this important wall. There should be federal protections against hate crimes, and the president should welcome, not oppose, a chance to sign such a measure.

Editorial
Sacramento Bee
Friday, May 04, 2007

Republicans and Democrats may not agree on much when it comes to campaign finance. Yet there should be unanimity on one issue: the need to speed up disclosure of who is contributing big bucks to politicians seeking office.

Senators are considering legislation that would accomplish that goal in their clubby chamber. Yet a single unnamed senator _ call that senator The Phantom _ has put a hold on legislation that would require electronic filing of Senate campaign reports. Who is this masked senator?

In all likelihood, The Phantom is a supporter of the current Stone Age reporting requirements in the U.S. Senate. Unlike their counterparts running for the House or the White House, candidates for the Senate don't have to file their reports electronically. Instead, they are processed through a labyrinthine system designed to prevent quick disclosure of which interests are trying to elect some powerful federal officeholders.

First, candidates file paper copies of their reports with the Senate Office of Public Records, which scans them and sends them digitally to the Federal Elections Committee.

The FEC prints the reports and sends them to a vendor in Fredericksburg, Va., where the information is keyed in by hand and then transferred back to the FEC database.

This process costs taxpayers $250,000 yearly. More important, it often prevents voters from learning who has contributed to Senate candidates until the election is over.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Mississippi, are sponsoring S. 223, which would require the information to be filed electronically. The bill has the support of 36 other senators, including Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California.

Twice last month, Feinstein went to the Senate floor to obtain unanimous consent on the legislation, which sailed through committee without an objection. And twice, an unnamed GOP senator put what is known as "secret hold" on the bill under the Senate's arcane rules.

Who is this Phantom? Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, surely knows. He issued the first objection "on behalf of a Republican senator." Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Kentucky, issued the second one last week.

The Senate's Republican leadership should be ashamed. They are using shrouded methods to protect a shrouded system of campaign financing, and senators from both parties are providing protection.

Many of them presumably know the identity of The Phantom. But in the chummy world of the U.S. Senate, they refuse to unmask that senator or to renounce such devious ways.

By JOHN KRIST
Scripps-McClatchy Western Service
Friday, May 04, 2007

LOS PADRES NATIONAL FOREST, Calif. _ From the top of Alamo Mountain, you can just about see where the Day fire started last summer, flaring into life on Labor Day near Southern California's Pyramid Lake and spreading quickly across the Ventura County backcountry. The lake is only five miles away as the condor flies, and it's possible to see much farther than that from Alamo Mountain's crest, which tops out at more than 7,000 feet.

The mountain also provides a striking view of the effectiveness of a fire management tool that is too seldom used, even though it may be among the most cost-effective ways of dealing with the ever-present threat of wildfire in the West. The lesson being displayed atop this rocky, pine-shaded peak is particularly timely now, with the 2007 fire season apparently off to an early start and federal officials warning in their May 1 forecast of a higher-than-usual danger of major wildfires throughout the western half of the nation this summer.

By the time wet weather finally snuffed the last sputtering flames and embers of the Day fire, it had roared uncontrollably across 254 square miles. Driven through rugged and remote terrain by fierce Santa Ana winds, it resisted containment by thousands of firefighters for more than a month.

For a time, it was the top-priority wildfire in the nation.

Most of the Los Padres National Forest is covered by chaparral, not forest.

Conifers are found mainly on the mountaintops, where there's sufficient precipitation. Alamo Mountain is typical, the shrubs that blanket its lower slopes giving way to Jeffrey and sugar pines at higher elevations.

Chaparral, a flammable mixture of hardy, drought-tolerant species such as ceanothus, manzanita, chamise, toyon and scrub oak, burns furiously but is adapted to and requires periodic incineration. Western conifer forests also are adapted to fire, but to fire of a very particular kind. Without recurring low-intensity fires, they become clogged with brush, woody debris and spindly young trees.

After a century of fire-suppression efforts in the United States, this is precisely the condition of tens of millions of acres of public forest. Not only do such conditions impair the health of individual trees, they also ensure that when fires finally do occur _ and they always do, thanks to lightning and incautious people with matches _ the flames burn more destructively. Instead of merely clearing and thinning the understory, such wildfires turn mature trees into torches and leave moonscapes in their wake.

The Day fire roared right over Alamo Mountain last September. Today, the rough dirt road that climbs the mountain passes through mile after mile of charred vegetation, the monochrome landscape enlivened only by small bursts of color where flowers and grasses have sprouted from bare soil. As the road ascends, the charred skeletons of chaparral shrubs give way to dead or dying conifers, their needles cooked brown by the heat. It's the scene typically found after an overdue fire sweeps through a western forest.

Near Alamo's summit, however, the pattern changes. On the downhill side of the road circling the mountaintop, the forest is black and brown. On the uphill side, it is green. The transition is abrupt and startling

Hike though this pine-scented stand of healthy trees and it is clear from the scorch marks and cinders that the Day fire passed through. But for the most part, the big pines are just fine. Burn marks on the trunks indicate that the flames, 10 or 12 feet high on the other side of the road, were only two to three feet high here.

The difference? A few years ago, the Forest Service deliberately set fire to about 320 acres on top of Alamo Mountain, and the road marks the burn perimeter. Ignited during cool, moist weather, the carefully managed fire was allowed to consume the brush, debris and small trees that would otherwise have fueled a more destructive kind of blaze.

It is rare to be provided such dramatic and convincing evidence of the way prescribed burns and other fuel-reduction efforts can minimize the destructive effect of inevitable wildfires, rendering them routine and regenerative rather than catastrophic. The Day fire served as an unplanned experiment that tested the theory, at least on a small scale, and proved it sound.

There are plenty of places across the West where similar projects could minimize the threat of wildfire to rural communities or to particularly vulnerable forest habitat. But the lesson of Alamo Mountain will be squandered as long as public-agency budget writers continue to shortchange prevention efforts while authorizing unlimited funds to battle fires that are too big and too intense to be extinguished by anything but winter.